As a hard core commuter (car for 2 years of my entire life) I am really hoping you will compare the lights in the $100-200 price range. Looks like there is a great crop of not silly expensive (300+) lights. But lights better than Chinese grab bag lights.

But to be fair, it would be exceedingly nice if you could compare them against the original MS light and the new 1200 T6 MS light. Though I completely understand that while the output might be comparable (or not) the durability may or may not be there.

I think there are a fair amount of us that got used to the output of the MS light and who are now in need of another light with better durability.

As a hard core commuter (car for 2 years of my entire life) I am really hoping you will compare the lights in the $100-200 price range. Looks like there is a great crop of not silly expensive (300+) lights. But lights better than Chinese grab bag lights.

But to be fair, it would be exceedingly nice if you could compare them against the original MS light and the new 1200 T6 MS light. Though I completely understand that while the output might be comparable (or not) the durability may or may not be there.

I think there are a fair amount of us that got used to the output of the MS light and who are now in need of another light with better durability.

Cygolite will not give me lights. I just do not understand. If you have a chance to influence them, let me them know they need to be in the mtbr shootout.

WOW!!! guess we know what your original #3 photo is. The NR 3000 is stupid bright!! The new top dog in brightness for sure. Francois, do you know if NR has made any improvements over the Pro1400 in terms of their reset function? Last years Pro series was just dumb, as if you tripped the protection curcuit out on the trail, you had to rely on your back up light to get you home so you could put the battery on the dock to reset.Hopefully they put the reset function on the battery itself.

It's never too late! This will take our collective efforts. I will link each editorial review to the user reviews section where there is a broad history of usage by mtbr members.

You all have to remember that it is your duty to write reviews in our Lights user reviews section!

Here's a photo of the current lights. There's more coming!!!

fc

ha, good point! I must confess I've only READ the several reviews on the lights I am seriously considering. However, I've WATCHED every single video review I can find, most of them at least 5 times. You've got a real knack for it. Very interesting. Keep up the good work!

There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?

fc

my immediate reaction was YEAH! $40K INTEGRATING SPHERE! Awesome!

but then I realized the reality is, 37 lumens doesn't mean as much as knowing ABC is 37 and XYZ is 42. So, as long as you measure them all with the same procedure I'm good with what you've always done. besides, if you do it this year you are setting a precedent that may be a pain the butt to keep up.

the only thing i can think of that would set it apart, since visibility is obviously job 1, perhaps you could lean the bike against your playset in darkness w/the tail light lit, front tire facing the fence and take a picture from your usual spot. a reverse beam shot if you will.

(isn't it funny how we all know exactly what your backyard looks like?)

the only thing i can think of that would set it apart, since visibility is obviously job 1, perhaps you could lean the bike against your playset in darkness w/the tail light lit, front tire facing the fence and take a picture from your usual spot. a reverse beam shot if you will.

(isn't it funny how we all know exactly what your backyard looks like?)

Who says that's my backyard?

It's funny talking to people at Interbike. They know that play structure intimately.

For tail lights, I can certainly do a video with each light coming through showing rear and side visibility.

Beamshots and video for taillights makes sense because the lumen output is not high enough to be an issue for digital photography.

For side view, it would be, I think, good to show what sort of red bloom the taillight shows around the bike, not just the straight on view of the LEDs. Some of the light mfgs recommend a slight downward angle of the light in order to get a large red bloom on the road and bike frame for additional visibility.

I do know that some of the digital cameras have issues with accurate portrayal of red - they do tend to oversaturate a bit.

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on some new lights soon. Are you going to review the 2012 stuff from Baja Designs? I think either their Dual or the 2012 Stryker on the bars plus the new Piko 3 would make an awesome, and blinding, combo. Waiting for your review before making the final decision.

So......which light is #3 already??? The suspense is killing everyone.

There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?

Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?

fc

The main thing you will get out of the integrated sphere is a consistent measure of OTF (out the front) lumens of all lights put into the sphere. This will probably make some unhappy as I am sure some manufactures represent their lights using at the emitter Led numbers which doesnt take into account loses for reflector/optic design or lens, heat energy loss etc. So their claims end up being over rated vs actual readings that you will get from the integrated sphere.

It would be interesting to see what the ratings are of the big output lights vs their general public claims.

Your lux reading sort of does the same thing when comparing light to light but it would be nice to know that a reference light "x" is 2200 lumens based on integrated sphere (vendor claim is 3000) and lux is 225 on your lux scale etc.

Beamshots and video for taillights makes sense because the lumen output is not high enough to be an issue for digital photography.

For side view, it would be, I think, good to show what sort of red bloom the taillight shows around the bike, not just the straight on view of the LEDs. Some of the light mfgs recommend a slight downward angle of the light in order to get a large red bloom on the road and bike frame for additional visibility.

I agree with the above, and will add the following: The whole point of tail lights is vastly different from headlights: Headlights are for the rider, while tail lights are for the inattentive onlooker. So it matters not how much light the tail light puts out in absolute terms. What matters is how attention-grabbing they are in relative terms. From this it follows....

1) Make sure the tail light shootout videos have as many lights lined up in the same frame as feasible. What looks bright on its own may look insignificant compared to other competitors, which is not too different from saying other "distractions on the road." We want the most distracting light possible, in some sense, burning just below the threshold at which it'll send the oncoming driver into an epileptic fit or an apoplectic rage.

2) Please upload videos of the tail lights compared in full daylight as well.

3) Show the tail lights at night from the side at approximately the distance across a 4-way intersection. Side impact is the most dangerous scenario.

4) Film a video of a drive down a narrow street with red lamps blazing at the driver at set intervals. Ask six of your friends to drive down that same street, and rate subjectively whether some tail lights were more effective than others at alerting them without pissing them off.

Finally, I'm bumping the list of tail lights that deserve testing, since I tweaked it a fair bit since first posting it:

Francois, the NiteFLUX RedZone 4 (can't yet post the link, but easy to find on Google) is really worth a close look. As you know from reviewing previous NiteFLUX lights, it's a high-quality Aussie-made product. It's just out, and I'm sure the company would be thrilled for the Stateside audience. This model is a 4W LED -- yes, that's even brighter than the MagicShine, and double or quadruple the output of the Planet Bike SuperFlash Turbo, PDW and Cygolite offerings. It seems like a killer light, but there are few comparative reviews of it yet.

Likewise, the Philips SafeRide RearLight is supposedly excellent at throwing light to the side.

There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?

I agree with all the others, this would be a fantastic addition to the shootout. With true OTF lumens AND lux, you'll be able to accurately describe how much light gets emitted and how. The only downside I can see is that some manufacturers might not appreciate being outed for overstating their lights output.

I would like to see how the Cateye TL-LD1100 tail light does, having the side visibility feature, compared to the others. I already own this model, but I'm willing to purchase the best tail light in the shootout.

Great suggestions on the tail lights. Just to set up expectation, this is a second priority/delivery to all the headlight testing. So don't expect too much too soon.

Photographing tail lights is usually a lost cause. The light cannot be pointed at the camera and it can't be flashing. But videotaping at angles or when following can be promising. Doing it in daytime is a great suggestion too. I just need to find a video camera that doesn't adjust to the light output.

The lux testing I do in my room is actually a rudimentary Integrating Sphere. I measure the total bounced light from a light head. It'll be good to validate my numbers as well to see if there's value and consistency to it.

You might be able to compare your room to the sphere and see how good the tracking is. If it's good, then just keep on doing what you do. that way all your reviews from the past are going to be comparable to the newest ones.

Photos or videos of the taillights straight on will not be representative of anything. The camera will saturate on the brightest parts and will bloom on the rest until it gets into the camera's dynamic range. I think the idea of showing what it looks like against a white wall in both profile and perpendicular would probably do it along with your (subjective) description of what you are seeing. The bloom against the side and perpendicular is going to give an excellent idea of the relative output and beam but yet be doable with your current video gear.

Just wondering when the shootout will be posted. I've got a 24hr coming up in a couple of weeks and need to order a new light. By the way, thanks Francois for your work on this. Always great reading your reviews.

Can't wait to see the 2012 lights shootout Francois. I wouldn't mind seeing cygolite join the shootout. When I first started night riding in the early 90's I bought a cygolite 30 watt halogen light and it was a good light and I still have it although I haven't used it in years. I charged the battery and the darned thing still lit up to my amazement. Didn't stay lit for too long though as that is one old battery pack. Still the cygolite still worked after near 20 years later.

I was able to check out the unfinished link. Great shots! I got the niterider minewt 600 and it looks good on your picture but with the human eye it doesn't look that bright. Also are the lights picture taken from a fresh fully charged light? I notice some of the lights I tested after about 10 minutes of use the light tends to dim and settle to a constant light output.

I'm working on it now. I have a ton of lights and I'm getting a bunch more!!!

It will be broken up in a Commuter and High End category.

What do you guys want to see?

Here's some sneak peak photos.

- ok light
- very flat beam pattern light
- bright light

fc

Personally I'm more excited about the 2nd light than the 3rd one. I mean the 2nd light wouldn't make a good mountain biking light (and this is mtbr.com to be fair) but it would make a great commuting light. Because of the smaller dynamic range of these cameras, the other thing is that usually it's not really completely dark off to the sides, the pic looks that way but I bet there's a little light.

And it looks like...it looks like a shaped beam you could aim to not hit people in the face. It looks...a *lot* like the Lumotec Cyo dynamo light. I would...well, *really*, *really* like to know what light the 2nd light is as I need a commuting light for my non-dynamo bike....

The light in the 3rd pic looks bright, but -

1. I bet it is super bright - but cameras tend to overexaggerate this vs what you see. The problem isn't with the camera or the settings, but that your eyes adjust to how much light you're seeing and hey, maybe they finally made a light bright enough to see at night like it's day. I know if I ran both my Seca 900 and Seca 1400 at the same time it was pretty bright. But I've bought lights based on the pics and the differences aren't as dramatic as pics with constant settings make them out to be. I bet if you're standing there in person the 1st light is brighter (if you turn it on and let your eyes adjust) and the 3rd light is very bright but just not as dramatically brighter than the pic would suggest.

2. I notice the very bright, nearly washed out spot right in front of the camera on the ground...my Seca 1400 has that same thing, and I'm not a fan. I feel like my eyes adjust to that spot so I don't get as much out of the light as I'd like. This light looks like it also has a center beam so I don't believe it's the Seca...probably the Night Rider 3,000?

And it looks like...it looks like a shaped beam you could aim to not hit people in the face. It looks...a *lot* like the Lumotec Cyo dynamo light. I would...well, *really*, *really* like to know what light the 2nd light is as I need a commuting light for my non-dynamo bike....

I don't know, I think the one place AA batteries do make sense is in a commuter light if it has a charger built into the light (just plug the light in and it charges the AA batteries). Completely replacing the battery with AA rechargeables costs $10 the last time I checked. Or going on an extra long trip? Bring another $10 set of batteries with you. Have you seen the replacement costs of lith-ion batteries? Dinotte is known for having relatively cheap battery replacement costs, and their smaller 2 cell battery costs $50 to replace. When I was in college, I definitely would have been willing to deal with a larger light in exchange for saving $40.

I don't know, I think the one place AA batteries do make sense is in a commuter light if it has a charger built into the light (just plug the light in and it charges the AA batteries). Completely replacing the battery with AA rechargeables costs $10 the last time I checked. Or going on an extra long trip? Bring another $10 set of batteries with you. Have you seen the replacement costs of lith-ion batteries? Dinotte is known for having relatively cheap battery replacement costs, and their smaller 2 cell battery costs $50 to replace. When I was in college, I definitely would have been willing to deal with a larger light in exchange for saving $40.

I am...trying to be helpful so if it comes across at to nitpicky let me know. But I'm confused by a paragraph the end of the article -

Also, the operation of four batteries (AA, LR6) is possible.Thanks to the battery level / charging indicator and the cyclist has his light reserves in view. Via USB port, the battery can easily power on and charge any computer.

Was it...run through google translate? "the operation of four batteries is possible" doesn't make much sense. I think the second sentence means the cyclist can see a charge indicator but "light reserves" is very weird working. The last sentence says you can power and charge a computer from the light which must be backwards, lol.

There were 2 things with this light I was curious about -
1. I assume this is true from the pics, but the light charges AA's inside the light, you just hook it up, no need to remove the batteries, right?
2. Some reviews have said that the status lights on the light itself are to bright and you can get light in your face from the light which is annoying. What do you think?

Maybe...maybe now that mtbr has reviewed it, someone will actually start selling it in the US...right now it's ebay or pay to have it shipped from Europe...

Correct! That second page is from the German corporate site run through Google Translate. I'll fix it.

The battery is charged inside the light through a supplied USB charger.

The blue indicator lights are pretty dim and are not obtrusive at all. I'll confirm later.

The light will start selling at Amazon in about a week. QBP will have it mid October so most bike shops will be able to get it.

fc

Originally Posted by PaulRivers

Oh wow, cool!

I am...trying to be helpful so if it comes across at to nitpicky let me know. But I'm confused by a paragraph the end of the article -

Also, the operation of four batteries (AA, LR6) is possible.Thanks to the battery level / charging indicator and the cyclist has his light reserves in view. Via USB port, the battery can easily power on and charge any computer.

Was it...run through google translate? "the operation of four batteries is possible" doesn't make much sense. I think the second sentence means the cyclist can see a charge indicator but "light reserves" is very weird working. The last sentence says you can power and charge a computer from the light which must be backwards, lol.

There were 2 things with this light I was curious about -
1. I assume this is true from the pics, but the light charges AA's inside the light, you just hook it up, no need to remove the batteries, right?
2. Some reviews have said that the status lights on the light itself are to bright and you can get light in your face from the light which is annoying. What do you think?

Maybe...maybe now that mtbr has reviewed it, someone will actually start selling it in the US...right now it's ebay or pay to have it shipped from Europe...

Very cool! Francois, I do wonder if the makers intended for the lamp light to be thrown at the high forward angle at which it's shown in your yard shot. Seems to me that's plenty of glare in an oncoming eye. For purposes of demoing the lamp's brightness, it's appropriate, yet wouldn't the throw angle be pointed more sharply down, in practice, to prevent glare ... say, removing the shadow just in front of the rider?

If you want the Philips lamp sooner, the UPCs are these:

Silver: 8727900534917
Black: 8727900534948, 8727900534931

Cheapest prices are showing up on Amazon[dot]de and Google[dot]de[slash]prdhp